Byrne on Moore & Brits

[Jared Katooie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byrne

Yes... we know who John Byrne is. I think the preceding fifty-nine pages of this thread go some way towards demonstrating that!

Cheers

Jim

I think this was a joke based on Peter's previous post where he suggested that anyone referencing Wikipedia be banned.

wow byrne must be a force to be contended with if we waste 59 pages on him, in a forum based on NON superhero graphic work.

The really disturbing thing is that the "womens underware" thread only runs to 39 pages.

[Jim_Campbell]

I think this was a joke based on Peter's previous post where he suggested that anyone referencing Wikipedia be banned.

That's pretty much a straight lift from the rules on Byrne's forum.

Cheers

Jim

[Jared Katooie]

Holy crap, I thought you were joking! 

That's seriously weird...

[Jim_Campbell]

I can't help myself -- it's a sickness.

In his most breathtaking piece of revisionist claptrap yet, JB claims that Dark Knight Returns was all Alan Moore's fault due to being a book that came "after Watchmen" despite being published before it.

He then modifies his position, but no timeline I can make sense of has Gibbons finishing the art for Watchmen #1 when Miller is only "halfway" through #2 of DKR.

At least one new poster seems to want to take him to task on this. I wonder how long they'll last?

Cheers!

Jim

[SuperSurfer]

"The thought began to take shape in my head that any revisiting of those characters should be a continuation of the "tradition" of WATCHMEN. That is, as Moore trashed everything superheroes were all about, the next go-round should do the same with WATCHMEN itself. So the ideal candidate for doing the project should be someone who is equally a one trick pony, but from the opposite end of the spectrum. Immediately, one name sprang to the forefront: Rob Liefeld.

No, I'm not kidding. Liefeld would be to WATCHMEN what Moore was to superheroes in general. And it would be such fun to watch a whole flock of retailer's heads exploding, as they tried to serve two entirely different faces of mammon!"

[Professor Bear]

Jim: JB seems to be talking about xeroxes of the unfinished Watchmen issues being shared around the DC production offices and not the final published product.  I think Dave Gibbons even mentioned that Howard Chaykin complimented him on a preliminary version of an issue in one of the recent Meg articles?

[JayzusB.Christ]

To be fair, I had read somewhere that Frank Miller had read Watchmen and was impressed by it before creating DKR. And fair play to him, the result was very good indeed.

JB doesn't think so, of course, but once again DKR is generally considered a historical turning point in the history of comics and JB's stuff generally isn't.

Has Alan Moore ever commented on JB's near-obsession with Watchmen?  I'm guessing not; he doesn't have half as much to prove.

[Jim_Campbell]

JB seems to be talking about xeroxes of the unfinished Watchmen issues being shared around the DC production offices and not the final published product. 

Yes, I know this, on account of being able to read. My point is that if you track the lead times back, the dates are very difficult to make sense of. I read something Gibbons said about still drawing #4 of Watchmen when #1 came out, when he should have been drawing #5, which would track his delivery of the pages for #1 back to something like Dec 1985. I don't see how Miller can only have been halfway through drawing the second issue of DKR -- 47 painted pages per issue, remember -- in Dec 1985 if the first issue saw print in Feb 1986. Production lead times for a book, especially one creating a brand new publishing format, were a very different thing back then. Plus, Dick Giordano had already left the project because he felt that Miller was taking too long over it, so Miller and Varley would have to have put in an impressive turn of speed to hit the publishing schedule if Byrne's story is true.

To be fair, I had read somewhere that Frank Miller had read Watchmen and was impressed by it before creating DKR.

And I was surprised to see it mentioned because I hadn't heard it before. Given the tedious regularity with which I'll bleat on about how surprising I find the thematic similarities between the two heavyweights of 1980s "serious" mainstream comics, I'm astonished that no-one thought to mention that it wasn't that surprising if Miller had had sight of Watchmen while he was writing DKR.

Just as an addendum to this, however: I was pleased to discover that Mr Miller has a blog, so I've added a post to the comments section of his most recent post, with a link to the relevant page of the JBF and asked Frank if he can clarify...

Cheers!

Jim

[Professor Bear]

Why must you spread misery, Campbell?  John only wants to be loved.

[Emperor]

Just as an addendum to this, however: I was pleased to discover that Mr Miller has a blog, so I've added a post to the comments section of his most recent post, with a link to the relevant page of the JBF and asked Frank if he can clarify...

Quick go over there and hit like - we can make it the most popular comment there:
http://frankmillerink.com/#comment-65588051

Given the time that has passed since the piece was posted I wouldn't hold my breath though.

[Jim_Campbell]

Given the time that has passed since the piece was posted I wouldn't hold my breath though.

I know it's a long shot, but what the hell? :-)

Cheers!

Jim

[JayzusB.Christ]

Though Frank hasn't exactly covered himself in glory in recent years, he's still the writer of freakin' Dark Knight Returns, Batman Year 1 and Daredevil.  I'd love to hear what he has to say about Johnny Boy there belittling his greatest achievements.

[Potato]

Purely in the spirit of gleeful voyeurism, here's a thread where the JBF tie themselves in knots trying to work out why Arnold Drake liked Morrison's Doom Patrol better than Byrne's.

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34442&PN=1&TPN=6

That's quite an astonishing thread.
Even after someone posts and says they spoke to drake personally about it you still get massively arrogant posts like this:

Remember, what Drake is reported as saying is that Morrison that understood what Drake was trying to do, that he "got it" which is different than saying he simply liked what Morrison was doing. Of course, what Drake doesn't say is exactly what "it" is, what he saw in Morrison's work that echoed what Drake thought was in his own and was lacking in other versions especially since Morrison's version was a complete purposeful deconstruction and destruction of all that had come before.

That Ed Love fella's a bit of a cock.

I have just read 55 pages of this thread, took me nearly 2 days.

Some great stuff.

The hate they have over there for people like Moore and Morrison is truly bizare.

and Matt Timson, nice to see you again.

Love impaler

[Potato]

I can't help myself -- it's a sickness.

In his most breathtaking piece of revisionist claptrap yet, JB claims that Dark Knight Returns was all Alan Moore's fault due to being a book that came "after Watchmen" despite being published before it.

He then modifies his position, but no timeline I can make sense of has Gibbons finishing the art for Watchmen #1 when Miller is only "halfway" through #2 of DKR.

At least one new poster seems to want to take him to task on this. I wonder how long they'll last?

Cheers!

Jim

The new moore bashing thread is what made me get an account over there.

Same nonsense diferent day.

Its a shame as I said when I posted Byrne is/was a hero of mine when I started reading comics and now i think he is a bitter old has been.

Alan moore on the other hand is a very nice chap, and has been nothing but polite when I have met him.

[The Corinthian]

I particularly like the chap who can't get his head round the idea that a writer he doesn't personally like can also be critically acclaimed.